The Murder of Black Peter [SPOILERS]

[Kelthor]

To start with, I just love this game. Really loved the prequels too, but its just fun to see how they develop as they come. Anyways, when I played this case, I did recall that I had read about it before, in a book of course. Just couldn't remember whodunnit. So I figured that I'd go through the case as meticulous as possible, then compare with the book when I was done. And so when push came to shove, the one I eventually condemned was Patrick Cairns. Now what I found interesting in hindsight was the statistics that showed up at the end. Apparently only 27% went with him as a culprit. And so, that made me precarious about my choice. And so, as I couldn't find the book anymore, I googled it, and to my relief (according to the book) atleast, I had very much picked the "right" culprit.

Now, I could find a thread about this case through google, although I couldn't find it here on Steam. So my question is, who did you go with, and why?

[RRevy]

Hello,

27% only? That's really surprising, but I suppose it's because there is a solution, among few others, very close to the most of the people, and if they didn't focus a little bit more on evidences, that highly motivated solution is their choice. While playing, I was thinking about it too. But let's go to the point starting from beginning.

***It's a ONE HUGE SPOILER, with names and everything, so, for anyone who's still on that case - do not read it!***

Okay. Let me start from the ones, I did not go with, because in this case, I think I went mostly by the road of elimination. I would not focus on each evidence, because that would took ages, it already does, so... just general thoughts of mine.

The first one I ruled out was Neligan. His story was complete to me from the beginning and "hold together". He found out, that one of his father's bonds were sold and by who, so he visited the man. Carey was killed at about 2:00 AM, and his wife found his body at 10:00, so the boy had to came to Carey's cabin somewhere during those 8 hours, saw him pinned to the wall, got scared, dropped his notebook.

He also said, that he was looking for the bonds, but he couldn't find them - that means they were taken earlier, or the boy took them himself and lies now - but if he did, why he would get back to the cabin? To take the notebook, right? Now, would he really need it, if he already had the bonds? I don't think so. And it would be very hard to find him after his initials only, so the notebook could really stay there. But he did not find the bonds, and this notebook of his, was his one and only lead to them, so he had to get back to get it. There he got ambushed, which made him a suspect for the murder.

Btw, he also did not matched as a murderer to me. He was terrified and real all the time, and when Holmes pushed him about the ring during interrogation, he was speaking. But when he pushed him about murder, he was screaming saying that he didn't do it. I think the guy like him would react the same way, I mean - being pushed to the corner made him speak - if there were anything to talk about.

That left me with Hurtley, and then Carins.

The garnder was just a "lucky man" in this situation to me - the death of Black Peter sort of suited him. He loved Carey's wife, but Judith would never left his husband. Since she's free, he could try to start with her, so he gave her back the love letters she was asking for so long, for a good start.
But Judith thought, that he might be the killer of her husband, so she probably didn't want to see him any more and he had to know about it.
Therefore, Hurtley came at night to hide the love letters in a tool shed, and also wanted to give Judith another letter (the one he got caught with) in which he probably wanted to told her, that he did not killed her husband.

I think that's why Hurtley was so "I'm not gonna say anything" all the time. He didn't even try to explain anything. He was quite happy about what's happened and knew, that a romance with Judith might make him a suspect (strong motive), but he did not realize that Holmes already knows.

I also think that killing a man with a harpoon does not fit him. Yes, he was a soldier so he had the strength to do that, but being an everyday gardner means, that he knew habits of Black Peter and if he really wanted to kill him, he would think of a better solution than just enter the cabin and throw a harpoon at the man.

I also ruled out any cooperation between suspects - this murder does not look like something planned earlier.

We can see a bottle of rum, two glasses, P.C. tobacco pouch and no sight of a struggle, so we can assume, that everything happend quite fast with availible weapons. Carins needed money, so he visited Carey. They never liked each other, had an argue about the past and stolen bonds, Black Peter got mad, took out his knife and Cairns took harpoon - probably the only familiar thing to him (would a boy or a former soldier think of it as a weapon to kill a man in the first place? Nah..). After killing him, Carins probably recognise the metal box on the shelf, the same that he saw with the lonely man on the boat years ago, the man that was thrown to the sea by Black Peter, so he takes the box on his way out, and in this whole mess he forgets to take his pouch and even to close the door.

Next visitor of the cabin was Neligan, then Carey's wife.

[Der_Finger]

There actually is a button in-Game to show if the ending you chose is the "real" one.

In this case, it can only be Cairns in the end.

There are 3 options in the end, with only 2 being possible.

Option 1 is that Neligan is the evil guy. But that rules out itself. How should that little guy pierce Carey with a heavy harpoon?

Option 2 is that Neligan AND Hurtley did it together. They could "combine" their powers to use the harpoon, and both have a motive kinda. 2 Problems though. First, the notebook of Neligan fell on the floor "prior to the murder". That's what Holmes says. Second, there is the knife Carey tried to defend himself with. If he tried to attack the two, they could not be fast enough to grab the harpoon together and then pierce it through Carey together.

Also why would Hurtley hide the letters just to kill Peter anyway?

"Real" end is that Neligan came there to find out about his father's financial stuff and lost his notebook. Cairns visits Peter then, tries to get some money out of him. Drunk Peter tries to attack him with the knife, and the strong harpooner grabs the harpoon and kills Peter. He takes the money stuff anyway. Neligan then comes back the two times ONLY to get his notebook back. Unlucky timing though.

By the way, the second moral choice (It was a fight, Cairns just defended himself, no police) is the one from the real short story.

In general i do not really like the "multiple-ending" feature. As a Holmes-Fan i don't think it is really Holmes-like. Holmes always will find all clues and evidence to bring up the smart conducted solution at the right, the one and only true conduction. So being able to "solve" a case not correctly feels awkward for Holmes.

Then again, the "wrong" solutions are made to look "right", but are disappointing still.
So conducting that Neligan and Hurtley are the murderers leads to a confrontaion of them. They both will say that they are innocent, then someone will drop some line like "It was his idea" and then they will go on like "I am truly innocent". So the ending is actually wrong, but the game makes them look somewhat right, which makes them look just awkward in the end.

Another problem is that the game is designed in a way that the game can make those endings look right. Especially in the second case. Real ending is that the Mexicans drowned the Chileans. In my opinion (maybe i am missing something) there is no evidence though, that shows that that is the "real" ending, or that shows that the others are "wrong". All endings are equally right, well at least the clues and evidence you got make them look equally possible. So at the end of that case it felt more like "guessing" the answer and "judging" by "what do i think sounds the best". Not really satisfying for me. Most of the times the conductions are stupid too. You find out that both wanted the mine, but the chilean got it. Then you can chose "Grudge" or "No grudge". Well how am i supposed to know? There is no other clue in the case somewhat showing me the right answer for that. Unfortunately i cannot think myself to be mexican and judge by myself.

I even thought that the "Mexicans took revenge"-endings are the ones that were definitely wrong. Why should the mexican and lying stranger stay for a couple of days at that station, and even AFTER the crime? That meant for me that he was waiting, still waiting, which in turn meant that the train had to disappear at a point before that station.

I thought that Mr. Robinson is the swindler, faking a machine and getting money from insurance and pre-payments. There is no evidence to prove that for wrong. By the way, why could we not look for the train in the sea or the mine FIRST, to solve the case then? Hmmm...

Anyway, confronting Robinson with that theory will make him go mad and say "I am inoocent. Do you know who i am?! You make a mistake! You will pay for that!"

A really not satisfying and disappointing end, solving a case obviously wrong, with the game saying me "you did good lad". Not fitting for "Sherlock Holmes".

But that is not really what this thread is about. Just my opinion about the multiple-endings stuff.

[Kelthor]

In my opinion, I kinda like the way with the multiple endings, because I think that the purpose is that there are no "right" ending, since you "are" Sherlock Holmes... And though it might seem unlike Sherlock Holmes'ish to have dubious reasons to decide who did what. I think that you can't refer to the storys as being 100% water tight, since you are never really presented with another solution in the books, when Sherlock at the end clarifies the case.

What I don't like though, is that there in fact seems to be right and wrong outcomes, even though the game encourages you to think for yourself. Like in the second case, it did to me, seem like the mexicans murdered the chileans over the lost money from the contract. But it would seem more logic that they buried them in the mines, since, that was what the grudge was all about. Like "if we can't have it, then you can just go bury yourselves in there". Instead of first stealing the train, then loading the barge with the train and the chileans still in it, and drowning them in the lake. Since, it would take much more effort to bring large equipment such as the barges into the picture, and taking them out on the lake, with more chance of them either being seen, or the chileans fighting their way out of the train carts.

For me, it stood between murder of the chileans, or the chileans stole the train to me. But I somehow couldn't find the papers with Mr. Robinson's contracts (to see if they were prospect buyers, thus knowing about it, but didn't want to pay full price for it), and the fact that the Chesterfield station master had been given a drink "with a kick". Now I don't know about chilean alcoholic beverages, but I do know that mexicans has a well re-knowned (but perhaps not for the time for the story) traditional drink, namely "tequila". And thus I made a personal deduction (not in the game) that the ones who borrowed the tools, most likely were mexicans.

[Mackelroni]

The garnder was just a "lucky man" in this situation to me - the death of Black Peter sort of suited him. He loved Carey's wife, but Judith would never left his husband. Since she's free, he could try to start with her, so he gave her back the love letters she was asking for so long, for a good start.
But Judith thought, that he might be the killer of her husband, so she probably didn't want to see him any more and he had to know about it.
Therefore, Hurtley came at night to hide the love letters in a tool shed, and also wanted to give Judith another letter (the one he got caught with) in which he probably wanted to told her, that he did not killed her husband.

I think that's why Hurtley was so "I'm not gonna say anything" all the time. He didn't even try to explain anything. He was quite happy about what's happened and knew, that a romance with Judith might make him a suspect (strong motive), but he did not realize that Holmes already knows.

I also think that killing a man with a harpoon does not fit him. Yes, he was a soldier so he had the strength to do that, but being an everyday gardner means, that he knew habits of Black Peter and if he really wanted to kill him, he would think of a better solution than just enter the cabin and throw a harpoon at the man.


But hurtley was not the gardener so he did not know the habits of peter.

[RRevy]

Originally posted by legendaryhero_46:

But hurtley was not the gardener so he did not know the habits of peter.

Yes, he was. :) I even remember him admitting to this during the interrogation.

[kschang77]

I think legendaryhero_46 was referring to the supposition that Black Peter, being a drunk and jealous sort, would NEVER tolerate a gardener with designs on his wife, even if it's the unrequited kind, so I doubt Hurtley would have ever seen Black Peter, much less know Black Peter's habits.

And there's the question how much arm strength would a gardener have vs. a harpooner or a fishmonger. :)

But yes, there's only one suspect, but the question here is what will you do with that knowledge? Sherlock Holmes is always about "doing the RIGHT thing" rather than "justice". He's willing to overlook a lot of... procedural stuff if it leads to a better outcome overall.

[BoHuggabee]

sherlock never asked important questions. how did the notebook land in the blood. did the kid break in the night of the murder see the body and flee, leaving the door open, explaining the reasons as to why the door was open that morning the wife went to check and found the body? if so, then we know the kid was the last one to leave that night. would the murderer leave the door open?
there were two glasses for rum, the table wasn't shaken, the glasses weren't tilted, and there was no struggle around the chairs. the blood wasn't smeared from chairs moving, so no struggles. . sherlock never goes into depth about the relationship of clairn's and peter. but why was the chest open with all of the navigational supplies in it? if clairns murdered peter for the chest then why were the log pages torn out and the shares left behind?! it would make sense that having clairns see the guest on their ship, he'd know what the chest looked like. the kid however returns the next night. if he were involved in the original plot, returning would have been pointless, unless he had opened the chest to find that the canadian pacific railroad shares(the most valuable) shares i'm assuming, were missing. a need to return. did the kid open the chest as peter walked in from the bathroom to find the kid stealing from him, as he pulls the spear off the wall and pierces him through to the wall. or, had peter and clairns, been sharing a drink, peter turns his back to clairns, draws his knife, giving clairns the opportunity to pick up the spear as peter turns around. clairns would have spoken of peter in last tense had he murdered him or been involved, but he doesn't. ALSO, you trap anyone and they'll fight...

i think peter and clairns were friends. sailors that hated one another but were still friends because of their whale hunting days, they were both scumbags, thick as thieves…but the kid has motive, he has resolve, he has justice on his side. he even has a man that is worth framing for witnessing his father's murder. the set up is perfect if we could trace the kid to a single conversation tracing him to clairn before the murder, if he was questioning clairn about peter. tracking him down. follows clairn to peter's. the kid as the two friends leave, sneaks in to the cabin opens the chest find his father's clothes. peter walks in to find him there, as the kid picks up the speer turning counterclockwise. peter backs up grabs the knife on the table as the kid runs through him in vengeful aggression. the notebook falling out of the jacket's pocket from the forces applied. shocked at what he has done grabs the chest with his father's money, NOT THE NAVIGATIONAL CHEST, and runs. leaving the door open, because his hands were full. or maybe he put the jacket on after killing peter, and that is when the notebook flung out of the pocket into the blood, because the blood has to travel to the floor. hastily putting on coats often flings things from the pockets… either way, this game disgusts me in that it's total ♥♥♥♥.

[Microsoft Access]

Old thread I know, but I actually found the cases all really fair once I paid close attention to them. Take the second case for example. Most people have the gripe with this one that all of the conclusions are equally possible, and I thought this as well until I really looked at the evidence that was present that was not part of the actual evidence, like the 2 glasses in case one.
I thought that the likely cause was that Robinson was a swindler, but that would then mean that everything to do with the Mexicans and the chileans would be circumstantial.

Next is the Chileans stealing the prototype by hiding it in the mines, or the Mexicans burying them there. Pretty likely, until one final thing that I only noticed with my eyes.
The heavy transport markings of the 6ft 7 inches cart that were in the first station were also present at the flooded quarry train tracks. This MUST have meant that whatever happened to the train must have happened in the flooded quarry, i.e. tying the case straight to the Mexicans because the rail supplies couldn't have come from anywhere else other than the destroyed shed where they were stolen from.

So pleased with this being free on xbox one as well for games with gold, great snag. Fantastic game, play it.

[Kalaxus]

No one has the missing bonds, which makes this case maddening. Seems to be evidence pointing towards none of the suspects made off with the loot so what the widow or Moriarity snuck away with the stolen fortune of Neligan's inheritance after Cairns killed Peter? Sherlock doesn't even bother to wonder where all that money went? And the clear lack of any signs of struggle yet Peter's knife was drawn just further makes all Holmes conclusion choices not make sense. What did Peter draw the knife and wait by the far wall patiently for Cairns to retrieve a harpoon from the rack and impale him? looked like they were just having peaceful drinks. Maybe I watched too much Dexter, am over thinking the evidence, or over-estimating the devs attention to detail in laying out these crime scenes but with what I see as is, it seems the evidence exonerates all the suspects... Where's the option to say none of these guys here did it, and while I don't know how I'm sure Moriarty is the killer here. As holmes no matter what the case is I should always be able to point a baseless paranoid finger in Moriarty's direction

[Mquintana28]

Because mostly of the people absolved Cairns :-)

[Krimpatul]

Originally posted by Der_Finger:

(...)
Then again, the "wrong" solutions are made to look "right", but are disappointing still.
So conducting that Neligan and Hurtley are the murderers leads to a confrontaion of them. They both will say that they are innocent, then someone will drop some line like "It was his idea" and then they will go on like "I am truly innocent". So the ending is actually wrong, but the game makes them look somewhat right, which makes them look just awkward in the end.

Another problem is that the game is designed in a way that the game can make those endings look right. Especially in the second case. Real ending is that the Mexicans drowned the Chileans. In my opinion (maybe i am missing something) there is no evidence though, that shows that that is the "real" ending, or that shows that the others are "wrong". All endings are equally right, well at least the clues and evidence you got make them look equally possible. So at the end of that case it felt more like "guessing" the answer and "judging" by "what do i think sounds the best". Not really satisfying for me. Most of the times the conductions are stupid too. You find out that both wanted the mine, but the chilean got it. Then you can chose "Grudge" or "No grudge". Well how am i supposed to know? There is no other clue in the case somewhat showing me the right answer for that. Unfortunately i cannot think myself to be mexican and judge by myself.

(...)

A really not satisfying and disappointing end, solving a case obviously wrong, with the game saying me "you did good lad". Not fitting for "Sherlock Holmes".

But that is not really what this thread is about. Just my opinion about the multiple-endings stuff.

Basically I was really disappointed and angry with the game because of this, but Der_Finder explained it so much better. It's so cheap; there's no reality, it's different depending on what you choose, so what sense there is in playing detective??
I'm even surprised that someone gave the ok to this game design. I imagine it's destined to make people think they got it right and feel intelligent or something, which in the end is the reason people play any kind of game; feel you can overcome something, at least sometimes. Bu then why do they let you confirm if you were right? And why there's no convincing reasoning on why each conclusion is right or wrong???
Probably because as Der_Finger says, from a detective point of view, at least in the Train, there seems to be no real evidence for one option over another!! It's so cheap... I got it for free in EPIC so i just lost my time. And in Black Peter, was the notebook on the floor when Peter entered and didn't see it? a not so small notebook with his most valuable secret? And how come I can be "right" if I condemn the killer as a cold-blooded murderer and not self-defense?!?!!?

It could have been good with some intelligent story and game design, and there are loooots of intelligent people out there, probably even the ones that made it where forced to do it in a way they thought was an error. At least they let you skip some empty repetitive puzzles or mini-games.

[JZStudios]

Originally posted by Der_Finger:

Especially in the second case. Real ending is that the Mexicans drowned the Chileans. In my opinion (maybe i am missing something) there is no evidence though, that shows that that is the "real" ending, or that shows that the others are "wrong". All endings are equally right, well at least the clues and evidence you got make them look equally possible. So at the end of that case it felt more like "guessing" the answer and "judging" by "what do i think sounds the best". Not really satisfying for me. Most of the times the conductions are stupid too. You find out that both wanted the mine, but the chilean got it. Then you can chose "Grudge" or "No grudge". Well how am i supposed to know? There is no other clue in the case somewhat showing me the right answer for that. Unfortunately i cannot think myself to be mexican and judge by myself.

I even thought that the "Mexicans took revenge"-endings are the ones that were definitely wrong. Why should the mexican and lying stranger stay for a couple of days at that station, and even AFTER the crime? That meant for me that he was waiting, still waiting, which in turn meant that the train had to disappear at a point before that station.

I thought that Mr. Robinson is the swindler, faking a machine and getting money from insurance and pre-payments. There is no evidence to prove that for wrong. By the way, why could we not look for the train in the sea or the mine FIRST, to solve the case then? Hmmm...

Necro'd. The only actual reason I went with the Mexicans drowning the Chileans was the evidence that they had a barge in the water and the matching wagon tracks at the beach. It still doesn't make sense, but that's the only thing that tied the locations together. Why is the barge in the lake? They didn't steal anything, as far as we know. Why are there wagon tracks on the beach? It's "shown" to be the wagon carrying rails and ties, but there aren't any at the beach. Neither of these things make sense other than to place the fact that the Mexicans were there.

Other than that, there's the slight amount of logic that they could still go after the mine and it would be troublesome to have a train full of dead Chileans in it.

Although I agree, Robinson with his fraud makes much more sense. He exclusively sold his single prototype to multiple companies with advanced payments and had a large insurance policy on it. If that machine had ever actually been sold he would've been committing serious fraud and would be imprisoned. It makes way more sense for him to have his invention "disappear" than Mexicans drowning Chileans because they got the rights to a mine in a different country.